A Matter of Opinion
A Matter of Opinion is a
forum that encourages
experts to share their
viewpoints about key
C A NI NE BE H AV I O R / T R A I N I N G
Dog Whisperer
or Old Yeller?
topics that affect the
veterinary profession
today. We invite you to
respond to this column by
exchanging your comments
in our Sounding Board
column. Please submit
your letters to michelle@
cliniciansbrief.com and
remember to give your
name, affiliation, and
contact information.
T
he term whisperer conjures an image
of connection with the object of the
whisperer’s attention and, most of all, of
benevolence, so it is disappointing that the term
today has become associated with the use of
physical and psychological force in dog training.
As veterinarians, we are faced with a dilemma when
it comes to changing the behavior of our patients.
Owners might seek advice directly from us but may
be more likely to obtain information from other
sources.1 The variety of training techniques and recommendations available on the Internet, on television, in
books, and by word of mouth are not always based in science.2 In contrast, appropriate training methods not only
consider issues of welfare and ethical handling but also
make use of the science of learning.
CONTINUES
Ilana R. Reisner, DVM, PhD,
Diplomate ACVB
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
A Matter of Opinion / NAVC Clinician’s Brief / September 2011 ..........................................................................................................................................................77
A Matter of Opinion
A Clockwork
Orange
If you have
seen the
movie or read
the book, A Clockwork
Orange, you are familiar with
its “popular” interpretation of
flooding—forced exposure to
stimuli that cause a response
of fear or arousal. This
fictional Ludovico technique
involved treating the patient
with an emetic and then
exposing the patient to
previously pleasurable
CONTINUED
It is difficult to know what training methods
have been used by pet owners unless we specifically ask them. Herron and coworkers utilized a
survey to log both aversive and nonaversive
training methods used in dogs.1 Most of the
interventions had been recommended by a local
trainer, by “self,” or from a television program,
again indicating that pet owners often seek
information about training from nonveterinary
sources. In this study, dogs that had been presented for aggression to familiar people (a
category of misbehaving dogs that might be
subjected to “corrections” with some frequency)
were significantly more likely to respond
aggressively to confrontational methods such as
the “alpha roll” or “dominance down.” Shock
collars, which are widely available and commonly used, have been linked to stress and pain
and have long-term consequences, even in situations that do not involve shock.3,4
stimuli in a manner that
created aversion to those
stimuli. The effectiveness
of this approach is
questionable.
Because inappropriate training methods may
increase the risk for biting, anxiety, and other
behavior problems, thereby increasing the potential for relinquishment or euthanasia of pets,5
there are compelling reasons to address the issue
of training methods with veterinary clients.
PUNISHMENT & FLOODING
At least one widely available resource emphasizes
changing dog behavior through a combination of
punishment and flooding.6 While either might
be useful in specific, carefully applied settings,
punishment and flooding are not recommended
for pet owners as a first intervention for behavior
problems.1
In learning terms, punishment is any stimulus
change that reduces the probability of occurrence
of the behavior preceding it. For purposes of this
column, punishment refers to positive punishment, that is, when an aversive stimulus is
applied to the animal, in contrast to negative
punishment, which refers to the removal of a
desirable stimulus.
From a popular viewpoint (see A Clockwork
Orange), flooding is a conditioning technique that
forces the exposure of individuals to a source of
fear or arousal without allowing escape from the
stimulus. While flooding can be a useful tool in
select circumstances and when applied by trained
professionals, it is promulgated to pet owners
as the answer to everyday fears when a more
Why Approach
Clients About
Their Pet’s
Behavior?
●
As veterinarians, we have a professional responsibility
to promote standards of humane care, including behavior
modification and training.
●
Confrontational training is associated with increased
anxiety, aggression, and deterioration of the family–pet
relationship.7 When intervention fails or results in
worsening of the problem, euthanasia or relinquishment
may be the next course of action.5
78 ..........................................................................................................................................................NAVC Clinician’s Brief / September 2011 / A Matter of Opinion
graduated program of desensitization and counterconditioning might suffice—and would almost
certainly be more humane.
WHY NOT USE PUNISHMENT &
FLOODING?
Why is it inadvisable for clients to use punishment or flooding? First, punishment must be
sufficiently aversive to be effective. Pain, for
example, is universally aversive, while saying “No”
is almost never so. Second, it must be applied
every time the behavior arises and, finally, it must
occur during or immediately after the behavior
occurs.
The two latter conditions are difficult for dog
owners to apply consistently, but the first condition involves the highest risk for both the dog
and the trainer. Furthermore, punishment-based
training has been associated with an increased
incidence of problem behaviors.7
The other technique in question, flooding, may
place the dog (and owner) in a situation of high
risk because the stimulus being forced on the dog
is often frightening. Although flooding may be
used effectively in some situations, it requires the
elicitation of fear (with the objective of extinguishing it).
●
The dog’s handler or other family members,
including children, may be at risk for injury if
aversive training methods are continued.
●
Inappropriate or incomplete advice about
behavior modification may ultimately lead to
dog-bite liability for owners or even the person providing advice to them.13
THE DOMINANCE THEORY
The concept of canine dominance is given some
credence by the popular media and, unfortunately, frustrated (but well-meaning) dog owners
are easily convinced of its truth.8,9 It is now clear,
however, that much of “dominance theory” is
based on incorrect conclusions drawn from the
behavior of captive wolves living in unnatural
conditions and groups.10
Similarly, aversive training methods are often
rooted in the assumption that, given free reign,
dogs will naturally try to dominate their human
owners unless they assert their own dominance to
control each dog’s behavior.2,11 In fact, many
common behavior problems in dogs—aggression,
fearfulness, destructiveness, inappropriate elimination, excessive vocalization, and inappropriate
attention-seeking—are associated not with dominance but with anxiety.12 Observing and videotaping these dogs or asking owners some simple
questions will frequently reveal conflict signals
(eg, yawning, lip-licking) and anxious or ambivalent posturing. Aggressive dogs or those whose
behavior might appear confident often show fear
during thunderstorms, confinement, or in other
contexts, supporting the diagnosis of an underlying generalized anxiety.
CONTINUES
A Matter of Opinion / NAVC Clinician’s Brief / September 2011 ..........................................................................................................................................................79
A Matter of Opinion
CONTINUED
READERS, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
We welcome your feedback. Email
[email protected] with
your comments and opinions.
One of the more important concepts veterinarians can teach clients is that short-term inhibition
of behavior does not indicate that the underlying
motivation has changed. Owners who simply
understand that undesirable behavior may stem
from a state of “worry” are less likely to respond
with punishment or rough handling. Moreover,
responding harshly to a dog’s inappropriate
behavior can increase its fear and reactivity and
associate that fear with the owner, further
increasing the dog’s reactivity in the future.
SHOULDN’T OWNERS HAVE CONTROL?
It is possible, perhaps easier, to have a welltrained and well-behaved companion dog without asserting “dominance.” People who live with
dogs need and want to have some control over
their behavior and activity—some degree of control is what makes our shared lives work. There
is a difference, however, between controlling an
animal’s behavior through training (with some
accommodation for its needs) and controlling it
through confrontational handling. Controlling
behavior through training is more effective
because the interactions between owner and dog
do not elicit fear. Furthermore, owners themselves are likely to find it easier and more gratifying to use humane training methods; they often
express relief when reassured that harsh training
is not recommended.
THE CHOICE IS SIMPLE
As animal professionals, we have an obligation to
“first do no harm.” We have an opportunity to
correct the misinformation about training methods and to support the client’s bond with the
dog. Taking the time to discuss training methods
can enrich the veterinarian–client–pet relationship of trust and safety, leading to a greater
chance of training success and keeping the dog
for life.
See Aids & Resources,
back page, for references
& suggested reading.
80 ..........................................................................................................................................................NAVC Clinician’s Brief / September 2011 / A Matter of Opinion